Connection lost
Server error
Ashton-Tate Corp. v. Ross Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A programmer contributed ideas for a software user interface but did not write any code for it. The court held he was not a joint author because joint authorship requires each party to contribute independently copyrightable expression, not just ideas.
Legal Significance: Establishes in the Ninth Circuit that joint authorship under the Copyright Act requires each author to contribute independently copyrightable expression, rejecting the view that contributing mere ideas or direction is sufficient.
Ashton-Tate Corp. v. Ross Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Richard Ross and Randy Wigginton collaborated on a spreadsheet program prototype, “MacCalc.” They agreed Ross would develop the “engine” (computational component) and Wigginton the user interface. Ross provided Wigginton with ideas and a handwritten list of commands for the interface, but Wigginton wrote all the interface code, while Ross wrote the engine code. After a dispute, Wigginton took the user interface he had developed to Ashton-Tate, a software publisher. Ashton-Tate combined Wigginton’s interface with a different engine to create and release the “Full Impact” program. Ross learned in March 1985 that Wigginton had disclosed their work to Ashton-Tate. After Full Impact was released in 1988, Ashton-Tate filed for a declaratory judgment that it was the sole owner of the copyright. Ross counterclaimed, asserting he was a joint author of Full Impact and that Ashton-Tate had misappropriated his trade secrets.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a person who contributes only ideas and other non-copyrightable material to the development of a copyrightable work, such as a computer program, qualify as a joint author of that work under the Copyright Act?
No. The court affirmed summary judgment for Ashton-Tate, holding that Ross was Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi u
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does a person who contributes only ideas and other non-copyrightable material to the development of a copyrightable work, such as a computer program, qualify as a joint author of that work under the Copyright Act?
Conclusion
This case solidifies the Ninth Circuit's requirement that joint authorship demands an Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exerci
Legal Rule
To be a joint author of a work under the Copyright Act, Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in volup
Legal Analysis
The court analyzed Ross's claim to joint authorship by adopting the stricter Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- To be a joint author, a collaborator must contribute independently copyrightable